Do liberals and progressives need to arm themselves?

[Homer12]

1st - I do believe we have 2nd Amendment rights to own firearms.

2nd - I am from WI which to my disgust has adopted concealed carry, as far to go to let people bring concealed weapons into public buildings and spaces.

3rd - Most modern conservatives are extremists and in fact scare me about how they talk about guns and how they would use them acting as judge, jury, and executioner.


I fear for my safety because I am a liberal. It is an absolute fact that conservative extremists will kill liberals and from Rush Limbaugh to Eric Cantor would not mind if liberals were killed if anything to intimidate us and keep us quite.

Do liberals and progressives need to start getting the message that the America that the right wing wants is one were we are exterminated.

[Johonny]

1. when liberal groups armed themselves in the late 60s and 70s

suddenly more conservatives started digging gun control.

[AverageJoe90]

3. I wouldn't have been surprised........nt

[TheWraith]

27. In fact, that's the entire reason that Reagan signed the Mulford Act in California.

Most people don't know, and the right chooses to forget, that Reagan was as governor of California pretty much the patron saint of gun control, primarily as a means to try and squash the Black Panthers. Black people equipped with guns for self defense in the 1960s scared the white suburbanites, which is why Reagan got the Mulford Act passed which banned openly carrying a loaded firearm. And it's why California laws were written to require the approval of the county sheriff for concealed carry of a handgun, so that the (white) sheriffs could weed out the "undesirables."

[SteveM]

83. And the 1968 Gun Control Act was largely designed to disarm blacks...

"Some white liberals have said essentially the same thing. Investigative reporter Robert Sherrill, himself no lover of guns, concluded in his book The Saturday Night Special that the object of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was black control rather than gun control. According to Sherrill, Congress was so panicked by the ghetto riots of 1967 and 1968 that it passed the act to 'shut off weapons access to blacks, and since they (Congress) probably associated cheap guns with ghetto blacks and thought cheapness was peculiarly the characteristic of imported military surplus and the mail-order traffic, they decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter purchases open to the affluent.' Congressional motivations may have been more complex than Sherrill suggests, but keeping blacks from acquiring guns was certainly a large part of that motivation."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html
__________________

Such attempts to cut-off the supply of cheap guns has its roots in Jim Crow legislation in the South. Trouble is, the legislation also cut off the supply of guns to poor whites, so the laws were either repealed (and replaced by point-blank race specific prohibitions), or not enforced.

[haikugal]

2. As anathema as it is to most liberals

I think it's a good idea for us to learn to use firearms...I, like you, see a lot of radicals armed to the teeth with blood lust for liberals, blacks, hispanics, gays etc. It's better to be prepared...also self defense courses are a good thing and of course keeping oneself in good shape. A long list perhaps but nothing that people younger than myself should find too demanding. It takes a certain toughness, or stupidity to harm another humane being...something that the service is good at developing...so I don't know what to say about that. I guess some things you don't know about yourself until you have to defend yourself or someone else. Just thoughts off the top of my head. It's starting to feel a little like the wild west in this country. I like you have gotten the message.

[Edweird]

9. Please support your 'anathema' assertion with verifiable, unbiased facts.

Every poll on the subject here at DU shows you to be wrong.

[haikugal]

42. I'm old school hippy and we weren't into guns.

[Edweird]

68. You don't like guns, I got that part. Now substantiate the "most" part.

[haikugal]

106. In my day it was most...I'm from the Bay Area..California

[aikoaiko]

108. Ron McKernan would probably beg to differ

He had a nice lever action while living in the haight.

[Edweird]

121. I'm 40 so I can't speak about 'back in the day', but I'm talking about 'right now' anyway.

[Iktomiwicasa]

135. Here's some of my folks...

...right wing extremest nutjobs. :sarcasm:

[rrneck]

146. Defending the homeland since 1492.

I've wanted to steal that line for a while.

[Iktomiwicasa]

153. Damn straight.

[Starboard Tack]

110. He's right with the "most" part

Polls in the gungeon are not representative of liberal Democrats.

[beevul]

117. The polls you see screenshots of were done in GD. N/T

[Edweird]

123. First off, I'm pretty sure it's a 'she' not a 'he'.

Moving on: As others have noted the polls were in GD not the gun forum.
Lastly, the 'centrists' here love to point out how DU "is not the real world" - meaning that DU represents the fringe left and not the general population. If over half of the 'fringe left' owns guns, then what does that extrapolate to in the 'real world'?

[Starboard Tack]

140. Wrong. I do like guns. Surprise.

I don't like people using them on other people. Big difference.

[SteveM]

84. I'm an old hippy and I have plenty of guns...

Please note my post upstream. I think the reason you see so much spittle-flying language and nut-hustling from RW extremists is because they get the desired response from "liberals:" Fear, whining about bullies, and silence.

Don't play their game; they ain't got much to show.

[haikugal]

105. I don't play their game...I can hit back...or laugh at them

I don't whine or complain. I'm speaking from my experience no one else' . I'm well aware of what the RWA view of liberals is and I know they will be very surprised if push comes to shove.

[Starboard Tack]

111. You are an anomaly.

Nothing about being a hippy was about having "plenty of guns". What makes you qualify as an old hippy? Long hair? Smoke some dope? Drop some acid?
Charlie Manson thought he was a hippy too.

[Edweird]

124. The conversation is about now, not half a century ago. 'Used to be' doesn't count for much.

[SteveM]

143. You are wrong there.

I don't let others decide the standards for being a "hippie." That was the beauty of that era. In the South, and Mid-west I suspect, there were plenty of hippies who ran counter to the mainstream culture, wanted positive social change, who were no danger to society, and who kept a shotgun in the corner. Funny thing (to you), few thought much about that combination. Oh, and there were numerous hippies who did not smoke dope or even had long hair -- a little stereotypical, wouldn't you say?

[Starboard Tack]

91. The polls on DU here in the gungeon are hardly representative of liberal progressives.

We have some serious infiltration by libertarian extremists, or hadn't you noticed?

[gejohnston]

115. right or left libertarians?

There is a difference. Chomsky, Gandhi are examples. Gandhi was more libertarian than Ron Paul.

politicalcompass.org

According to their quiz, I am to the left of Ralph Nader and more libertarian than anyone on the chart.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Right libertarian

BTW my result was
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64

[Kennah]

147. Isn't that Left Libertarian?

Since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine.

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

[Starboard Tack]

148. See how close we are? Interesting.

I guess I'm slightly more conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues.

[Kennah]

150. And yet on the gun issue, there seems to be quite a divide between us. Interesting.

[Starboard Tack]

154. Probably because of our individual histories of growing up in different cultures.

[Kennah]

156. How so?

I admit I don't know much about the culture in which you grew up, but I'm more curious about how you know of mine.

[Starboard Tack]

157. Sorry, I assumed you grew up in this country.

My apologies if I'm wrong.

[Kennah]

158. Born and raised in the U.S., but every region is very culturally different

I lived in Maryland for 30 years. Then Florida, Washington, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and back to Washington for the last 7+ years.

[Starboard Tack]

159. OK, then I was right and I'm very familiar with our regional differences.

I grew up in England, but have lived here for the last 33 years in several states, FL, NY, MI, NJ, WV and NJ, in major cities like NYC and LA, small towns and rural areas. So, I have a fair understanding of the cultural variations on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Kennah]

160. I guess I don't see where the culture affected me

Maryland is not a gunowner paradise, crime is through the roof, and concealed carry all but does not happen.

Living elsewhere, and then going back to visit, the cultural bias AGAINST guns in D.C. and the surrounding areas became very apparent to me.

I think people tend to make up their own minds. A myriad of factors play into the decision. Culture plays a part, but I don't see that it's the biggest.

[Starboard Tack]

162. There exists a "gun culture" in the US like nowhere else

As you say, it varies tremendously in different parts of the country, but I find the biggest difference is between urban and rural America. I've lived and traveled in many parts of the world and this is the only country where I've ever heard people talk about carrying guns for self-defense.
I think the right wing and the NRA have been very successful, in recent years, spreading fear and insecurity and the myth that the Second Amendment is about freedom and individual rights. And we, as a people, have bought into it at an enormous societal cost.

[dmallind]

170. I grew up in England too, and have lived in 8 states

in areas ranging from top-20 cities to small towns 200+ miles from the nearest town with 100k+. I've had a small but useful gun collection for several years, and a CCW permit to boot.

Cultural norms are not only fungible, but also not universal.

[Starboard Tack]

151. My reference to right libertarians was about them infiltrating DU

There are a few who have a racist, us against them, view of the world and they tend to show up in this forum. They see themselves as the "good guys" and all others as either criminals or criminal coddlers.

[Kennah]

152. In any apple cart ...

I find it interesting that there are no world leaders in the Libertarian Right quadrant on politicalcompass.org

Oh, I'm sure there are be a few out there--perhaps a couple of the warlords in Somalia.

[beevul]

118. As I said, the polls you see screnshots of, were done in GD. n/t

[oneshooter]

130. And you are? n/t

[SteveM]

144. Starboard is arbiter of styles and standards. See #111.

[JuniperLea]

16. I'm sorry, that's just BS

Unless people can avail themselves of police or armed forces level training, it won't do any good at all.

It's a fairy tale to think that more guns is going to solve anything.

[TheWraith]

28. Actually, you can easily train yourself well in excess of "police level."

Something most people don't know or appreciate is that most police officers are NOT particularly good shots. Compared to, say, recreational handgun shooters, most of them are probably pretty bad. That's because most police officers only practice with their weapons the minimum amount required by the department. After all, there's very little chance of them actually NEEDING to be skilled with their gun, practice takes time, and they have much more urgent things to do, like paperwork.

[JuniperLea]

31. I shoot nearly as well...

As my friend (since we were little kids) who became a SWAT cop... but his training was intense.

Like I said, cops get it wrong too... and there's no litmus test for buying guns that keeps homicidal maniacs from buying them too.

Many of the people I know who have guns, shouldn't. Period. Ceilings, feet, car trunks/gas tanks blown up to prove that. Not smart enough to stow an unloaded gun; not smart enough to carry a loaded one.

[TheWraith]

36. SWAT is a *whole* different thing from line cops.

Most line cops don't train as much because they're unlikely to need their weapons. The entire point of SWAT is to have people well trained for situations where you KNOW it's going to be necessary.

As far as a litmus test, there's the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is invoked for every new purchase of a firearm, and bounces anyone flagged as a felon, violent misdemeanor, non-citizen, or mentally ill.

By the way, gas tanks don't blow up when shot, no matter what Hollywood has taught you.

[gejohnston]

114. I hope

Many of the people I know who have guns, shouldn't. Period. Ceilings, feet, car trunks/gas tanks blown up to prove that. Not smart enough to stow an unloaded gun; not smart enough to carry a loaded one.

you don't go the same range as these people. But then, something tells me these are not going to the range type of folks.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Most cops aren't all that good, really.

The SERT Team officers usually are (although really only the snipers are always people I'd call truly good), but the average uniformed officer fires their weapon only a handful of times a year, for mandatory qualifying. I shoot at least once a week. While I'd hate to ever have to be in a real firefight, cops don't intimidate me unless there are a fair few of them. Not trying to be all "Internet Tough Gal" here...but frequent, careful practice means everything.

The military. Another matter, in many, many cases. But in any plausible scenario of widespread civil insurrection and conflict, an intact military, all fighting for the same side, seems unlikely. I mean...OccupyMarines, y'know...?

[hack89]

69. Fortunately more guns have not led to more problems

in fact we have never been safer. So the status quo in regards to guns is ok while we fix the real problems with our society.

[Euromutt]

70. Such training is readily available from a variety of sources

There's Gunsite in Arizona, Thunder Ranch in Oregon, F.A.S. in Washington, Lethal Force Institute in New Hampshire... There is a large number of instruction centers out there that provide more than adequate training in use of firearms to private citizens.

Note, moreover, that the skills required to use a firearm, particularly a handgun, in self-defense are somewhat different from those needed by a police patrol officer or an infantryman. A private citizen only needs to be able to react effectively to an immediate threat to his person; (s)he doesn't need to be able to distinguish an aggressor from a victim/defender like a police officer responding to an incident does, nor does (s)he need to know tactics for conducting raids on unfamiliar buildings, like SWAT and military engaged in counter-insurgency do. When you are the victim of violent crime, you know damn well who the aggressor is, and you're likely more familiar with the layout of your own home, and the locations of the various inhabitants, than any home invader. That obviates the need for much of the training police and infantry receive.

I'll agree with you that more guns isn't a solution to a macro-scale problem, be it socio-economic or political, but having a gun available may make all the difference to an individual victim of an act of violence stemming from that macro-scale problem. Which is why Fannie Lou Hamer let it be known that she kept "a shotgun in every corner of the bedroom" and was more than willing to use any or all of them if someone tried to burn a cross on her lawn.

[Simo 1939_1940]

141. Glad you mentioned Gunsite rather than Front Sight, Euro.

"The Millionaire Patriot" (Front Sight) states as his goal that he wants to change the image of gun ownership while injecting RW talking points into his e-mails. Not the brightest bulb, this one - oblivious to the fact that he's alienating the very group he needs to appeal to in order to achieve his objective. I take it that Gunsite keeps politics out of their program, or makes a strong effort to do so?

[Kennah]

149. Never been to Gunsite or Front Sight, but I have been to FAS and LFI

Gunsite, back under Jeff Cooper, was apparently very Marine Corp-ish. I presume it was very RW.

I sat in a classroom only presentation by Richard Jee, former owner of Gunsite, after Cooper, and before Buz Mills bought it. Given how much Cooper disdained Jee, and praised Mills, I must presume that Gunsite is very RW-ish.

[Euromutt]

155. I wouldn't know whether Gunsite keeps politics out of the curriculum

But it's arguably the biggest privately operated firearms training center in the country. They have a lot of instructors, they have a lot of students coming through (~30% of whom are law enforcement or military), and I suspect the operation's too focused on firearms instruction to risk alienating any of the staff or customers. I certainly haven't read anything about (attempts at) political indoctrination sneaking into the curriculum, even though the curriculum is based on the teachings of Jeff Cooper who was, frankly, politically rather a troglodyte.

[Callisto32]

73. Um, no. Just, no.

Police/military quals represent a very basic level of proficiency.

[SomethingFishy]

4. It's always good to be prepared for

the Zombie Apocalypse.

[rl6214]

107. Watching the Zombie Apocalypes right now on SyFy channel

You must be properly armed.

[aikoaiko]

109. Me too.

LOL

[Wait Wut]

5. Already done.

I live in Arizona in the "reddest" city in the state. I'm surrounded by drunken assholes that like to make internet threats of gun violence against liberals in my town.

Yeah. I'm armed.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Yep. Me too in red state Tennessee.....

I also have 30 years of martial arts training.

But I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.

[badtoworse]

6. I am a strong supporter of RKBA

That said, I think you are being paranoid. I know a number of conservative people who are into guns and I've heard that kind of rhetoric. What you are describing is not out of the question, but I think there are other scenarios requiring a means of self-defense that are more likely to occur.

[ohheckyeah]

7. Should all hell break

loose in this country do you want the only ones that have guns to be the right wing wackos? I don't.

[Edweird]

8. Plenty of Liberals and Progressives are armed.

[SteveM]

85. ...and by political affiliation, the fastest growing group of gun-owners.

[Rex]

10. That is a myth. Most Americans own a gun or two.

No matter what party they belong to. Repukes just get more PR over the issue, because they are stupid and like to show off their dicks...er...guns in public.

[surrealAmerican]

20. Do they?

That is certainly not true where I live. Gun owners are a small minority here, and most of them are either hunters (for sport) or hobbyists.

[apocalypsehow]

54. They don't: the vast majority of privately owned firearms are in relatively few hands, statistically

speaking, at least as concerns those firearms that are the major problem with needless gun crimes/deaths in this country.

You have a widespread phenomenon in the larger U.S. population of households that have, say, one firearm in them, such as a .22 rifle or a shotgun, many times inherited from an older relative. Folks who live in rural parts of the country also have a larger presence of firearms in their lives, often for legitimate reasons related to predators menacing their flocks or their farms, stuff like that.

No one is talking about taking those firearms from those kinds of folks in those situations.

What is being addressed here, and what genuine progressives oppose, is the ubiquity of firearms in private hands whose only utility is the killing of another human being - and that's 95% of what is flacked for and insisted upon by the Republican Party in general and their NRA arm in particular - plus, of course, our RKBA 'progressives' here.... (:eyes:)

[TheWraith]

59. Given how incredibly little you clearly know about US gun laws and gun owners...

...right down to the incredibly worn and insulting trope about how anyone who carries a gun is just looking to kill someone... you might want to think again before you go around making claims about crap you clearly don't know anything about. I still haven't heard from you whether Eleanor Roosevelt was "no true liberal" or just looking to kill someone when she carried a pistol for self defense.

The actual fact is that while a majority of Americans don't own guns, there are 80 to 100 million who do, and many of those are multiple gun households, as evidenced by the some 300 million guns in this country. And despite what you believe about their owners, 99.9 percent of those weapons have never killed anyone, and never WILL kill anyone. And the vast majority of people in this country support the right to own guns, and not just the imaginary "good guns" you describe like grandpa's .22. You have a clearly defined bogeyman in your head for "one of those gun people" who's bristling with automatic weapons and shooting people over parking spaces. Only problem is, it's not true.

Also, your attitude toward those of us in the "rural parts" is rather insulting: not everyone out here are farmers or hayseeds looking out for the sheep.

[apocalypsehow]

64. LOL. Classic flail-o'-rama. Good stuff. n/t.

[SteveM]

87. Ain't nothing "progressive" about Jim Crow-based gun-control laws...

And the Democratic Party didn't even mention gun-control before the 1968 Party Platform, some 4 years after the Dave Clark Five had charted.

Gun-control is a just-add-water pop-up issue that has virtually created the modern NRA. Congrats to you, I guess.

[RSillsbee]

137. A majority of Americans don't own guns,

You might want to read up on the latest stats apparently almost 50% of homes in America now report owning at least one firearm.

I heard it on the Radio coming home Friday. I realize that almost 50% is (by definition) not a majority but it's a hell of alot more than 80 million

[PavePusher]

66. "...only utility is the killing of another human being..."

And which ones would those be? :eyes:

[Callisto32]

75. Jesus...

Thanks for the slander.

[SteveM]

86. I'm one of those Progressives with guns...

And I make no apology for owning guns designed for self-defense.

Since that is settled, I invite you to check out the data here at this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x473082

Note the fastest-rising group of new gun-owners by party affiliation.

[benEzra]

131. I see by your profile that you're in Illinois? Gun ownership is common outside the Chicago area

and gun owners in non-Chicago IL have enough political clout that your state never passed a ban on protruding rifle handgrips and magazines, even though Chicago-area politicians made an "assault weapon" ban one of their top legislative priorities for years.

Statewide, about 1 in 5 households in Illinois in this 2001 poll self-reported gun ownership (not much lower than the 1 in 4 self-reporting in Florida, a state where lawful gun ownership is much less censured) and seriously doubt that survey corrected for underreporting. Also consider that the statewide stats include Chicago, where legal gun ownership was until very recently exceedingly difficult.

Illinois does have the distinction of the being the only state in the nation, red or blue, that has no provision for concealed carry licensure (unless you are a Chicago alderman, of course), but I doubt that impacts ownership rates all that much.

[jpak]

95. Bullshit - gun ownership is a at historic lows - only 32% of Americans own them

but there be a whole pile of paranoid hoarders out there

yup

[benEzra]

132. Nope.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[spin]

136. Bullshit on your Bullshit ...

Check out this recent Gallup Poll ...

October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.



The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership....emphasis added
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Did you notice the underlined part of the excerpt? The problem with any poll that asks about gun ownership is that people are reluctant to admit to a stranger that they own firearms. Many people believe that discussing firearm ownership is a bad idea, some because of a distrust of the government, some because they fear that criminals may target their home if they know firearms are present and some because firearm owners have a poor reputation in the area of the nation where they live.

I conducted my own informal survey of gun owners and found that NONE would admit to a stranger conducting a survey that they owned firearms. The most common reply was, "It's none of their damn business."

My daughter worked for the census last year and she often had difficulty getting people to tell her how many people lived in her home.

Census time heightens privacy concerns
by Declan McCullagh March 22, 2010 4:00 AM PDT

***snip***

A Zogby poll released last week reveals that 49 percent of Americans are not confident that their data will be kept confidential, while only 46 percent believe it will be. Some illegal immigrants worry that their census forms will be shared with Homeland Security and lead to deportation. And conservatives including Ron Paul, the former Republican presidential candidate, say questions like race and homeownership have no basis in the U.S. Constitution; a YouTube video making those arguments has received 1.7 million views since it was posted last month.

"The questions and concerns are legitimate," says Jay Stanley, a spokesman for the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program. "If they're increasing, it's because a lot of people are more sensitized to privacy. They realize that if you share information with one organization, it doesn't necessarily stay with that organization. People are becoming more sophisticated about these things."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000859-38.html

The questions asked by the last census were realitvely benign compared to asking questions about firearm ownership. Therefore I personally believe that the 47% figure that Gallup determined are gun owners is an underestimate. The true percentage is probably in the 60% bracket.

You of course, will continue to believe that only a very few people own 300,000,000 firearms and just have enormous gun collections. Current estimates are that 80,000,000 people own firearms which would mean that each gun owner owns an average of close to 4 firearms. That sounds fairly reasonable to me.

I also find it hilarious that you admit that 32% of Americans own firearms and then say that they are a bunch of paranoid hoarders. According to the last census there are 234 million people above the age of 18 in our nation. If 32% own firearms then there are 75 million gun owners. If the Gallup poll is right there is 110 million gun owners. If I am right there are 152 million gun owners. Even using your figures, 75 million people is a large number.

Let me point out to you that the Rasmussen Report determined that 33.7% of Americans are Democrats. That is roughly the same percentage that you say own firearms. I would hardly consider the Democratic Party inconsequential.

Partisan Trends
Parity: 33.9% of Americans are Republicans, 33.7% Democrats
Sunday, October 02, 2011

The number of Republicans and Democrats in the country is just about even. In fact, the gap between the parties is the smallest it has ever been in nearly nine years of monthly tracking.

During the month of September, 33.9% of Americans considered themselves to be Republicans while 33.7% consider themselves Democrats. For both parties, those numbers are up less than a single percentage point from August. As a result, the number of voters not affiliated with either party fell from an all time high of 33.5% in August back to 32.4% in September.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

[cleanhippie]

11. Many already are.

[RagAss]

12. Those of us who are armed....normally don't broadcast it.

I'm an old Connecticut boy....where Colt, Ruger, Marlin, Remington, Winchester and Charter Arms once filled
their factories with Union Democrat machinists....give me a break...we had enough guns per capita in our homes to make the south shit their collective pants.

When and if the time comes.....trust me....our side is ready.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Look how the force of will of Americans and #Occupy are already changing things.

Imagine ten times this number, saying NO! to bullshit. It will shake the entire world.

[JuniperLea]

14. No, this is a battle of wits...

And the GOTP is unarmed.

Look, a TeaBagger shot and killed a good friend and 7 other people a couple of weeks ago... and I have been a shooter since age 9... and I'm more convinced than ever that more guns will not solve anything.

Cops are fully trained, and they don't always get it right. I don't get how anyone can think that the average American can be trained to be an effective shooter without police or armed services level of training. It's nonsense.

I would have had to have a gun strapped to me or sitting on the counter in front of the salon chair in order to have an extremely small chance of stopping that homicidal maniac TeaBagger from shooting the place up.

You just don't know.... you just don't fucking know!

Arming more people is fucking stupid.

[Edweird]

24. The police and military do not have some kind of mystical jedi powers.

The more you shoot, the more skilled you are. The more you train, the more prepared you are. It is not difficult or complicated to be more skilled or prepared, it just takes the desire and the commitment. Your post is inaccurate.

[JuniperLea]

32. Someone please tell ignored I'm not going to reply...

Thank you.

[Callisto32]

76. Don't act like an asshole....

srsly.


Thank you.

[Edweird]

79. LOL @ U

[hack89]

133. How far are you willing to run to avoid inconvenient facts? nt

[SteveM]

88. The more important issue is now playing the GOP's "bully game"...

When the liberal/progressive crowd grows a pair, then the RW bullies will be backed up.

My guns are for self-defense; I don't need them to threaten or bully people. I just tell the cock-strutters to back off or bring along their biggest buddy nest time -- saves a lot of time.

Why is it that liberals/progressives feel they have to complain to some authority (schools, town councils, legislators) about bullying? Given the number of RW legislators, any bully complaints they receive probably puts a tilt in their kilt anyway.

[one-eyed fat man]

145. Can you explain something

I read it was some wacko in a custody fight with an ex who did the shooting. I don't remember reading about the wacko's politics. Do you KNOW or have evidence he was a Teabagger or do you define all homicidal maniacs as Teabaggers?

[dmallind]

171. His license plate frame was a Teaparty one. nt

[surrealAmerican]

15. Fire arms don't really help.

Yes, we have a constitutionally protected right, but it doesn't help to exercise it unless you are planning a revolution.

Peaceful protests are best done unarmed, and peaceful protests are more likely to win people over than armed insurrection.

[JuniperLea]

18. Well said...

Thank you.

[EC]

17. Many of us do

already. I don't carry, but I own.

[apocalypsehow]

19. 1. There is no 2nd amendment right for individuals to own firearms; it's a collective right,

conferred in order to allow states to organize "militias" for collective self-defense, aka The National Guard. The current slender 5-4 ruling on the 2nd will be overturned with one more liberal appointment to the bench - it is the Plessey v. Ferguson of 2nd amendment jurisprudence, and will not withstand a liberal majority on the court.

2. Concealed carry laws are indeed disgusting, and they are uniformly supported, across the board, by right-wing assholes who vote the straight GOP ticket. I've yet to meet one genuine progressive who was also a supporter of private citizens being able to tote around high-powered weaponry in public like it was 1881 again, and the whole country was one big version of Tombstone, Arizona.

3. I agree completely with your third point.

Liberals do not need guns, we already have everything we need on our side: the facts.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

29. LOL When some guy breaks into your

house throw some facts at him and let us know how that worked for you.

[JuniperLea]

33. Yeah, because

anyone with a gun can wake from a sound sleep, grab a gun, and get the bad guy before the bad guy gets them. dreamers.

[ohheckyeah]

34. Yes, actually people do.

Amazing what an adrenaline rush can do.

[apocalypsehow]

39. That's gun totin' logic for you though: they really think it's just like they saw Charles Bronson do

in "Deathwish", or Matt Dillon striding into the Longbranch Saloon with his six shooter ready to fast draw.

That's part of what makes the mentality so frightening; the kind of folks who brag about toting around guns day & night online are probably about the last subset of the adult population that should have them.

And as I said elsewhere: I have yet to meet a genuine progressive who believes that people have a "right" to tote guns around in public, and act like free-lance cops.


Edit: typo.

[Union Scribe]

82. I've yet to meet a genuine progressive who is a Raiders fan.

Look, I can make self-serving rules about political affiliations too!

[rrneck]

89. You should get out more. nt

[SteveM]

94. Vast quantities of unsubstantiated attacks. You sound like Rick Perry. nt

[RSillsbee]

138. I don't know about all that Matt Dillon crap

I know my uncle did it a time or two in a little place called Viet Nam (perhaps you've heard of it?)

[SteveM]

93. Here, you are making some unsubstantiated assertions...

I, and many others, are fully prepared to use firearms in the event of a break-in; all part of normal self-defense procedures for a safe household. There are ample studies which show that firearms are used to thwart crimes by the hundreds of thousands each year -- and the vast majority of these involve no one being shot. Announcing that you have a gun, working the gun's action, display of a gun, firing a warning shot, even shooting at (but not hitting) an intruder account for nearly all successful defenses.

There is no "dreaming" about this -- just sound preparation.

[TheWraith]

35. No, it's an individual right, which the Supreme Court was unanimous about.

The 5/4 decision was on the specific merits of overturning the Chicago ban based on the Second Amendment versus the Ninth. The court was unanimous in affirming that it's an individual right--as it has always been held to be, recent spin to try and minimize it notwithstanding--and President Obama has also expressed his support for it as an individual right. The attempt to claim that it's really a collective right is a recent case of historical revisionism from people who want to justify unconstitutional levels of control.

Two, you might then want to do a little reading, because your entire response is basically a talking point. Start with Eleanor Roosevelt, who was famous for owning and practicing with a revolver as well as carrying it for self defense. Also Jerry Brown, who as Cali AG joined in the case against the Chicago ban on the side of the gun owner. Or Howard Dean, who was governor of the state with the loosest gun laws in the country--at the time the only state where you could carry a concealed weapon without a permit--and who won the NRA endorsement in his various campaigns some eight times. Or how about Nancy Pelosi, who has a concealed carry permit for her San Francisco home? Or...

You get the drift. Despite what you may think, there is a much broader cross section of support than you seem to believe.

You also demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the past, for instance that the "wild west" is a complete and utter myth. You mention Tombstone, Arizona, but you probably aren't aware that the most homicides it ever recorded for a single year was three. The image of large and frequent gunfights is utterly wrong, one which has been propagated first by people writing exciting but fictional tales for consumption "back east," and then by Hollywood, until it's so ingrained people don't know any better.

[apocalypsehow]

41. False: the liberals on the court were "unanimous" about no such thing. Here, go educate yourself:

What the liberal dissenters actually said

Money quotes:

"In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".<49> Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.<49>

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer."

Justice Breyer did file a separate dissenting opinion, but it was only to stress that even if one accepted the "individual right" view, the DC ban would still have been permissible:

"The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"

Nice try, but you really should look into these things before you post stuff that is demonstrably false - just a tip.

Class dismissed.

[TheWraith]

55. You might want to check the case we were actually talking about, re: Chicago. nt

[apocalypsehow]

57. You might want to check the post you were actually responding too, re: Heller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=473987&mesg_id=474017

[TheWraith]

58. Then we evidently have a miscommunication. nt

[apocalypsehow]

62. Nope: I think we're communicating just fine. I am certain, for instance, that I understand perfectly

what you are (and have been) trying to say: message received.

Accordingly, I have a pretty fair notion that you completely grasp the reverse, and understand perfectly.

So...since we have established that there is no "miscommunication" between us about the subject of "guns," I guess the decent thing to ask in interest of filling the time is: how about them Cardinals?

[apocalypsehow]

43. *Kick*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2204470&mesg_id=2205661

:kick:

[apocalypsehow]

50. *Kick*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2204470&mesg_id=2205661

[apocalypsehow]

60. And by the bye, just so no one hereabouts is confused about the attempt to change the subject above:

Here's the facts about liberal justices dissenting in McDonald v. Chicago

Money quotes from genuine progressives:

"Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion. Among his disagreements with the majority was the statement that incorporation was not at issue in this case. Citing Cruikshank, Stevens wrote, "The so-called incorporation question was squarely and, in my view, correctly resolved in the late 19th century." In addition, he argues against incorporation, taking issue with the methodology of the majority opinions.

Justice Breyers' dissent states, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, “fundamental.”

So, in sum, once again, the liberals/progressives on the court ruled against the moronic "individual right" view, and the right-wing assholes on the court ruled for more guns for all, just like their Republican friends and NRA pals wanted them to.

I know who I'm on the side of in such legal/constitutional disputes: odd it is, truth be told, that any actual liberal or progressive wouldn't be right there with me....Kennedy/Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito (Reagan/Bush/Bush II appointees) wrote the majority opinion. Odd it is, indeed, to find any 'progressive' anywhere who would line up with that combo.... (:eyes:)

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. Wow...people still believe that?

Sorry, but the "collective right" argument not only got shot down in the judicial system, it's also very nearly indefensible from a linguistic or philosophical standpoint. The right wing may not get much right...but they got this one right.

[apocalypsehow]

48. The right wing did not "get" it right: please try again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2204470&mesg_id=2205661

[Callisto32]

77. Luckily

legal minds disagree.

[Union Scribe]

80. What other rights enumerated in the BOR do you think shouldn't

belong to individuals?

[SteveM]

92. Sorry, you are wrong about several things here...

1) The RKBA is an individual right, just as all the rights enumerated in the Constitution are (in fact, there are no state's rights or "community rights" either).

2) NO rights are "conferred." Read the language of the Bill of Rights -- there is no "conferring," explicitly or implicitly.

3) The RKBA is RECOGNIZED and held by the people individually, as is the 4th Amendment where "the people" is used.

4) The U.S. has the power to organize a MILITIA, and it states that interest in the Second's secondary clause; the OPERATIVE CLAUSE is the recognition that the RKBA is held by the people.

5) The militia and the "National Guard" are separate entities; the militia has never been superseded by any "national guard," and you will find legislation in the various states concerning the MILITIA, just as you will find it in the U.S. Constitution.

6) No where in the Heller and McDonald decisions does a justice say that there is no individual RKBA. If you find such, please provide the cite.

7) Your views on carry laws are merely unsubstantiated rhetoric. And there are plenty of people right here who are "genuine progressives" who support "private citizens being able to tote around high-powered weaponry in public." But if you would like an example, try Eleanor Roosevelt. What 1881 has to do with anything is unexplained. As to Tombstone, Arizona, maybe a little too many B&W westerns, eh?

8) Liberals can decide for themselves whether or not they "need guns;" you will, of course, not decide that (a distinctly un-liberal stance).

9) As to "facts," your's have been shown to be wrong or non-existent.


Your assertions are old-hat, and routinely and effectively defeated. Thank you for this opportunity!

:-)

[Euromutt]

100. Balls; the very notion of a "collective right" is an ad hoc fabrication

Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights refers in numerous instances to "the right of the people," the only instance in which proponents of the "collective right" interpretation apply that interpretation is when it comes to the Second Amendment. Somehow, nobody argues that "the right of the people <...> to petition the government for a redress of grievances" or "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is anything other than an individual right, even though the language is no different from "the right of the people" in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The presence of the prefatory clause in the Second Amendment, as opposed to the others, only serves to illustrate one difference, namely that--as opposed to the rights of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances and be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures--it is actively in the interest of the government, in the event that it should have to call forth the militia (and note that even in this day and age, "the militia" consists of more than the National Guard alone), to have available a pool of recruits who are already experienced with the skills of weapons handling and marksmanship.

I don't see Heller and MacDonald and being the equivalent of Plessey; they might well be the equivalent of Roe v. Wade, which, you may have noticed, has not been overturned, and is highly unlikely to be, which is why various state legislatures periodically try to find ways to impede access to abortion without running afoul of the ruling, not unlike the pretzel-like contortions the D.C. and Chicago city governments have been working themselves into to blatantly violate the spirit of the ruling while conforming to the letter.

Also, the Supreme Court, as an institution, has an inordinate amount of deference for the rulings of previous incarnations, including ones that are patently bullshit. It took 58 years to overturn Plessey, and the court still hasn't overturned the ruling from the Slaughter-House cases that held that the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause doesn't actually mean what it very obviously says. (As an aside, much as I dislike Clarence Thomas, I do have to give him credit for being willing say, in so many words, "Slaughter-House was a bullshit ruling and it's well overdue to be overturned.")

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. "they are uniformly supported, across the board, by right-wing assholes" Explain Vermont, then.

They've had permitless carry since the 18th Century, they're the bluest state there is- and they show no signs of requiring
permits anytime soon.

The Gun Control Reality Distrotion Field has clearly had its way with you. I hope you at least got a kiss...

[Euromutt]

120. Or indeed, Washington state

Fifty years of "shall issue" and counting, hasn't been carried by a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan. The only state with a longer unbroken string of being carried by Democratic presidential candidates is Minnesota (the only state that went to Mondale in '84), which went to Nixon in '72 (as did every other state except Massachusetts). Even California went to Bush Sr. in '88. WA has two Democratic senators (both women, a fact of which I'm rather proud) and five of our nine representatives are Democrats.

[jmg257]

125. So collectively every one of the people must supply themselves w/militia-grade arms..I'll take an M4

and another M9 with regular capacity mags. Maybe I'll pick up an M14 too!

Being members of the Militias is sweet!

[RSillsbee]

139. SCOTUS disagrees with you

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[jwirr]

21. Already armed. Will not go to war but will defend our home and family.

[Sheepshank]

22. Baggers would crap their pants if they heard there was a wave of libs getting firearms. n/t

[JuniperLea]

23. Let's say we did...

But don't.

:D

[Sheepshank]

26. I love playing mind games....

...some people just set themselves up for mind playing

[JuniperLea]

30. The smaller the mind...

The more easily fooled, that's for sure.

They already believe all sorts of BS...

[Callisto32]

78. That would be foolish.

[SteveM]

96. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x473082

Note the fastest growing group of gun-owners by party affiliation.

[LanternWaste]

37. Not this liberal...

Not this liberal. This liberal won't lead, won't follow, won't get out of the way, and won't buy a gun.

While I may be concerned with those gun-toting, rooin'-tootin' buckaroos, I'm certainly not afraid.

[SteveM]

97. I do agree with one part of your statement...

"I'm certainly not afraid."

If folks would just quit playing the RW's game and playing their assigned role as bullied, then we could all get 8.5 hrs. a sleep each night. I keep my guns for self-defense, anyway.

[flamingdem]

40. Unrec. Avoidance is the key nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Already armed here.

But firearms aren't for everyone (even though the right to keep and bear them is possessed by all non-felon Americans). People not willing to put the time and effort into learning to handle weapons competently and safely shouldn't arm themselves. With rights come responsibilities...

[Capitalocracy]

46. Don't know about guns, but carrying mace seems more and more reasonable to me.

Haven't actually done it, though.

[oneshooter]

99. Check with your countries laws first. Unless you ment "carry a mace"

In that case, check your countries laws.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Capitalocracy]

102. haha...

[haikugal]

172. Bear Spray works as well...I've carried that...never used it but I'm sure it would work.

I'm much more comfortable with it.

[oneshooter]

173. Again, check your local laws. Pepper spray/bear spray may be considered the same as a firearm.

[Arugula Latte]

49. I would never, ever have a firearm in my house.

So, if the rightwing reichwing comes busts down my door, I guess I will have to sic my kitties on them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. most Iraqis in the days of Saddam owned guns. But it didn't do a bit of good in opposing a

totalitarian state. I really don't think it will help.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

98. It's also possible that there wasn't that much sentiment to oppose him. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

119. well actually he had millions of opponents who hated him passionately. but that doesn't mean that

they supported the country being bombed invaded and occupied. I had an flat-mate and numerous Iraqis I had worked with prior to Saddam even invading Kuwait. The hatred of Saddam was absolutely profound and widespread. That is not even debated among people familiar with the country and the region. But very few people anywhere in the world are going to support a foreign attack and invasion no matter how much they may hate their countries leaders or governments. Still Iraq was one of the most armed countries on earth - practically everyone owned guns - but private weapons are not going to repel a totalitarian state.

[SteveM]

142. I agree with most of what you say about Iraq...

As to whether or not private arms cannot repel a totalitarian state, the key word is "repel." Iraqis can (and others have repelled invaders equipped with superior arms. Homegrown totalitarian states should not be allowed to establish themselves in the first place. That is the advantage our society. We do not have a totalitarian state, and we should not allow one to formulate. In that connection, "private weapons" may be of advantage.

[Kennah]

161. Jews in Warsaw stood up to a totalitarian state in 1943

In fact, they were fighting the SS. If more of them had been better trained and prepared, they probably could have inflicted a LOT more damage.

There was an uprising at Sobibor, and it was soldiers and younger more determined prisoners who were able to kill enough Germans to effect the escape.

Being armed, and being willing to fight, makes one a combatant who can stand up to tyranny.

[kestrel91316]

53. It might not be wise for conservatives and authoritarians to assume we haven't already.

[Hoopla Phil]

56. "It is every gentleman's duty to at all times go armed"

This is true no matter what the political affiliation. Oh, I'll let you research who said that.

[Hoyt]

61. It's one thing to keep guns at home (in case of revolution), it's another to carry on streets now.

[gejohnston]

103. Need to read you MLK and Ghandi closer

in something like OWC, yes leave them home. Overwhelming force, yet nonviolent, is the key to peaceful revolution. Besides, it would give them an excuse to put away the pepper spray and bring out the shotguns, machine guns, etc.
Now if some of those good ole boys decide to attack you personally with intent to doing harm, then use the second amendment solution.

[Hoyt]

113. Fine, we agree -- no guns at OWS. So, then, we should leave guns at home unless yahoos assault.

You gonna shoot them if they are unarmed? I don't think it's a good idea to be thinking about needing 2A solutions -- but I guess that is what separates the "gun culture" of toters and the 90+% of society who see no need to tote.

[gejohnston]

116. of course that was dealing with The Man

internal security in the camps is another issue. Someone here said situation awareness, descalate, and avoidance first. Works on the street. Of course, being in the wrong place at the wrong time changes things.
Home security: low profile (don't own a bunch of furs, diamonds, and crap like that. I am 100 percent certain that the wife and I do not have any blood diamonds.) Big assed TV in front of the picture windows don't help either. Make place a hard target. Unarmed? depends. If he is 300 pounds of solid muscle and coming at me with a fist or martial arts, yeah. Some poor kid with my 20 year old TV? Wouldn't shoot, but call the cops.

[rrneck]

63. I think you might be uh,

jumping the gun.

We may be in for a throw down fight at some point, but it's waaay too early to tell. Politics make strange bedfellows and you may be surprised who will or won't be on your side if it comes to that.

The knowledge that you are ready and able to fight helps make a fight less likely. Until then there's a lot of demonstrating and voting to do.

[cayanne]

65. We have 7 guns

My husband has 6 and I have my own rifle.

:evilgrin:

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Always be prepared.

[ileus]

71. Just because we're progressives doesn't make us immune...

To becoming a victim.....be it robbery, physical, or political attack.

[Callisto32]

72. I think you are asking the wrong question.

When determining if you need to go armed, there is only one group to which you must belong: People who have a need to go armed.

No other designation however arbitrary (or not) matters.

[rrneck]

74. +100. nt

[SteveM]

81. Bullyism works because folks let themselves be bullied...

I don't worry about it, Homer. The RW bullies hustle themselves in public because they like to see pools of dirty yellow water form between the feet of liberals, but this only work if liberals play their game. And you have to admit, the RW has for some years now gotten liberals to play their games for some peculiar reason (we can speculate on that, if you wish).

You may be interested in this recently posted set of graphs; note the one showing gun-ownership by party affiliation. See which party is experiencing the biggest rise in gun ownership? Like I said to some conservative a few months ago when he said "I bet you're against guns": "No, sir, but I have guns against me."

Kinda shuts 'em up. Show much for bullies.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Excellent post. K&R . Let sanity rule

[spin]

101. I know a lot of conservatives since I know a lot of shooters ...

Admittedly the conservatives that I know are honest citizens and are not members of any extreme group. The majority of these gun owning conservatives are regular shooters at ranges and a high percentage have a concealed weapons permit.

Interestingly enough, most of these conservatives agree with many of the views that liberals cherish. The reason that they vote for conservative candidates is that they have a considerable amount of money and time invested in their shooting hobby and fear liberals would endanger their right to own and carry firearms.

I have never heard one of these people advocate killing liberals. In my opinion you are suffering from paranoia.

[krispos42]

112. It would be extraordinarily stupid to let them have all the guns.

Not necessarily because of "us versus them in a near-future civil war", but because there is so much uncertainly in the world. If there is economic or environmental collapse, planetwide disaster like the fault line in Tennessee or Missouri letting go or the volcano under Old Faithful explodes, or whatever else happens, it would be very stupid for liberals to have to rely solely on non-liberals for defense and survival hunting.

Not to mention that if liberals eschew guns, then the people that would be attracted to military service would be conservatives, meaning that the military would be dominated by them.

More importantly, it would mean that EX-military in the US would all be conservatives, too. That has to have bad political consequences!

Finally... why should liberals leave themselves personally at a disadvantage even in the ordinary run of modern human existence?

[one-eyed fat man]

165. That is happening now.

"More importantly, it would mean that EX-military in the US would all be conservatives, too. That has to have bad political consequences!"

Since 1974 and the end of the draft, the children of draft card burning hippies have been reared by their elders in the belief that military service is, as one wag put it, "...for hicks, spics and niggers."

For the first time in America's history, we are seeing the development of a "warrior class." There are a couple of troubling trends. First, more and more military families living apart from the general population and multi-generational traditions of service. Being in the military has become a "family business" passed from father to son. Second, the resultant preponderance of white Southerners, and to a lesser extent Westerners, but predominately conservatives in the Combat Arms.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA499283

…In particular, Blacks are under-represented among the combat arms. This condition can be termed occupational segregation. The U.S. Army's leadership is concerned about the low number of Black officers serving in the combat arms for two reasons. First, the low number of Blacks in the combat arms reduces the diversity and perhaps the credibility of the U.S. Army’s leadership. Second, it makes it difficult for Blacks to attain appropriate representation among general officers because seventy-two percent of the U.S. Army’s generals are selected from the combat arms.

—Emmett E. Burke
“Black Officer Under-representation in Combat Arms Branches”
School of Advanced Military Studies 2002.

Those self-identifying as liberals self selecting themselves out of military service may eventually find themselves in the same position that the Romans did. With service in the Legions beneath them, they outsourced the protection of Rome to the barbarians. The barbarians, eventually feeling more in common with their fellow barbarians than the citizens of Rome, opened the gates.

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-warrior-class.html

“The NCOs had served in the army long enough to stop caring about the whims of the American culture they protected so effectively; the joes were just removed enough to not fully recognize how the same society that reared us had detached itself from us the day we signed our enlistment papers. In a voluntary military, we fought for the nation, not with it.”

A friend of mine, a professional soldier who served for 25 years, had this to say:

“When I first came in, the drill sergeants, platoon sergeants and sergeants majors were all ‘Nam vets and they all told us the same thing; we are an all-volunteer Army, none of us were drafted; having served in a conscript Army they all said that we wouldn’t want to be in conflict with a bunch of draftees who did not want to be there. They told us about disciplinary problems in the draftee military you would not believe.”

“The war we are currently engaged in is The One Hundred Years War and the sooner the American people get used to that, the better. I do not differentiate between the ‘Iraq War’ and the ‘Afghanistan War’; they are simply different theaters of the same war.”

[krispos42]

166. That's about what I expected

Although the excerpts are very succinct.

*sigh* sometimes I wonder if we should have a draft. Two years of service out of high school in either the military or something non-violent, like the Peace Corps or whatever.

I mean, the way I want things to look is to have a more powerful Navy and Marine Corps to project power without needing so much in the way of overseas bases, a reduced Army and Air Force, an expanded National Guard, and far fewer bases overseas.

So our professional military isn't so busy getting combat experience, yanno?

[rrneck]

167. Somehow

through the miracle of identity politics "solidarity" became "nurturing". Social justice for women and minorities was long overdue and not finished yet. But the difference between those two terms is that nurturing happens in times of peace and prosperity, solidarity happens when there's a fight.

When the hippies and women invaded the Democratic party all the crude gun toting labor supporting ass kicking hardhat wearing picket line manning sumbitches left - and saw their jobs exported overseas. Liberals thought they won the fight and induldged in identity naval gazing when they should have been building their coalition. Most of the wedge issues that divide the working class spring from that mistake.

The left forgot what the inside of a foxhole looked like. They forgot how to fight, which explains the Democratic party today.

[one-eyed fat man]

168. There is more

pure unadulterated hatred of the "enemy" on a union picket line than in any combat infantry platoon.

"There is no more bloodthirsty creature on the face of the globe than a well-educated young woman with liberal convictions."

- Incident at Muc Wa

[rrneck]

169. Opressed people don't want freedom

they want to trade places with their oppressors.

Can't remember who said it.

[ileus]

122. Everyone should take advantage to their 2A rights regardless of circumstance.

It's the most important and progressive right we have.

[aikoaiko]

126. Yes, I think it is wise to do so. I am.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

127. Do not choose to carry out of fear.

It has nothing to do with political party affiliation.

A person who carries chooses to carry not because they are afraid, but because they are cognizant.
Cognizant of the fact that factors beyond their control may bring danger upon them. More importantly, they are cognizant of their ability and willingness to defend themselves using lethal force if required. This is not fear, but rather simple awareness... simple recognition of living in the real world and how far they would go to defend their life.

You'll hear most, if not all, people who carry concealed say that it is not for everyone. People who cannot think or act clearly under stress or people who are unsure that, if the time comes, they could actually shoot another person should NOT choose to arm themselves with a firearms. Such persons armed with firerms are more a danger to themselves and innocent people than the persons they are fearful of.

Choose to carry out of confidence and conviction... not fear.

[slackmaster]

128. Like everyone else, what they really need is the choice to arm themselves

In case they decide they want to.

[benEzra]

129. Dem and indie gun ownership is roughly comparable to Repubs in terms of absolute numbers, IIRC.

The percentage of gun ownership is lower among Dems and indies, perhaps because of the way the urban/rural demographic affects the feasibility of ownership, and "Gun Culture 1.0" back in the day was predominantly hunting/shotgunning centric, unlike today. Now, with the seeming decline of the Third Way movement, I expect that gun ownership and CCW licensure rates among Dems/progressives will probably increase from the nadir of the 1990's.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. I never heard of a mugger asking your politics before he attacks.

Of course liberals and progressives should be armed.

[jeepnstein]

164. Political violence is exceedingly rare in the United States.

If you fear Republicans that much you might want to consider taking a vacation from politics for a while, just to come up for air.

I carry a firearm more often than not because I realize monsters are real. I deal with them all the time. And one of these days one of them might decide to attack me either out of desperation or revenge. None of the monsters I know personally really worry much about politics.